What Should Colleges Teach?

Stanley Fish writes so brilliantly clear in his analysis about what colleges should teach that I almost want to agree with him, but I can't because of my own personal college experience. Though I agree with everything he says to defend his position (and love the way he says it), I can't comfortably state that all instructors/teachers should only teach grammar form in college writing composition courses. To me, that would not be a college composition writing course-it would be a grammar course. I sincerely believe that the different subject reading materials are crucial for a student who comes from a certain disadvantaged background but also for a student who has a fertile imagination-- both need food for thought to write about, even if for different reasons. I could see an unadulterated grammar course being good for students who are mathematically-minded and have no interest in discussing or writing about other fields or genres. However, Fish's idea would make it very difficult for many students who are already having trouble writing in standard English or a newly immigrant student who doesn't yet know the language. Learning grammar in such a stringent formulaic manner could turn off enough students to make the current writing problem situation worse than it already is.

That said, I agree with Fish's point that teaching grammar form, function, and meaning are badly needed in colleges, especially since we have many students who are first generation and have never mastered speaking and writing the standard form of the language enough to be successful in colleges or in society as a whole. Not speaking or writing well will limit these students when they go out into the world. In addition, we have native-born English-speaking students who are more interested in communicating through the Internet, e-mail, and texting, and have not cared to develop or improve in academic writing or about learning the finer points of the language. Nonetheless, I see reading and writing about other genres just as important as learning grammar for overall  success in college and future life. Furthermore, I believe that grammar can be taught in context of the selected reading material from multiple genres.

The problem, in part, may be that instructors who are bad at teaching formal grammar-- or get frustrated with students not responding in class when they do teach it-- decide to limit or delete it from the study course altogether.  As we all know, teachers teach in what they are interested, which is good because they'll be more engaged and engaging.  Therefore, it may just take a teacher like Fish, or his clone, to be able to pull off teaching a class that focuses only or mostly on formal grammar.  However, I believe all four (grammar, reading topics and discussion of and writing about the topics) are vital for the development of writing in all its aspects. In short, students need to know how to read, think, and discuss in order to better write about multiple genres. This is important for students who are paying, in time and money, to get a solid university degree.

Regarding the students who are not accustomed to reading and having discussions on current topics, or on any intellectual matters, at home, are at a great disadvantage when they enter a classroom, because content has never been provided for them. They come into the colleges with minds that are like blank slates needing to be informed and awakened in order to learn and think. How can these students begin to write a critical essay without having awareness and knowledge of the world surrounding them. It's true that "young people who can't write can't think analytically or critically," but people who don't know how and why to read, and discuss topics interpretively/analytically, can't think or write well either. It works both ways.

Although I know some professors see it beneath them to teach students grammar, it's time they come out of their ivory towers and deal with it instead of sending the students to tutors who don't know how to explain grammar, or even worse,  sending the students to the learning-disabled office, which I have witnessed more than once.

 I know some teachers do this out of frustration; however, that doesn't make it right. It can be very demoralizing for a young student to be sent to the school learning-disabled office. In fact, I've heard often times that these students are not learning disabled in the traditional sense; instead, they need someone who will help them work through the difficulties they're having. That requires a tutor or teacher's time and effort.  Of course, this is easy for me to say, since I'm not a college teacher. Who knows- when I teach full time I may find myself doing exactly what I am criticizing. However, I hope I never resort to these quick and misinformed measures out of frustration, especially since I'd be colluding with those who are interested in keeping the status quo, which isn't in my interest either.

Fish and others seem to be devaluing the reading and discussion aspects of writing. Students learn grammar to improve their writing, but writing goes beyond grammar (though I admit, it is needed in order for the student to go beyond).  Nonetheless, students should not be expected to pull ideas out of a magical hat. It's too frustrating. They have enough to deal with. I state again that I agree with Fish in that grammar form ought to be taught, but I believe it should be taught in tandem with discussion, reading,  and writing in multiple genres.  Moreover, the course title should emphasize that grammar form and compositional writing, will be taught. This way, the students know what to expect and the teachers know that it is expected of them by their superiors. (Of course, an alternative could be to teach a separate formal grammar course and a separate writing composition course.)

Final thoughts-It's interesting to note that Lynn Cheney is the co-founder of ACTA. The fact that this right-wing organization supports Fish's argument in that grammar form should be the main focus in a writing composition course makes me suspicious of ACTA's motives, as it does Fish. It's very possible that ACTA and its founders are more interested in thwarting information and critical thinking; however, the ACTA people say that most college professors are discouraging critical thinking by indoctrinating students with their own liberal-leaning perspective, which inhibits broader independent thinking.

However, this hasn't been my experience at the City College of New York. I have always been presented with a balance of both sides, and never felt pressured or like I was being prodded one way or the other. But I cannot say what the situation is at other colleges, even though I've read, for example, that Harvard and Yale lean left and Stanford and Chicago lean right. But that's another discussion.

Local Knowlege blog-common sense

The title suggests that common sense should be understood as a cultural system. Common sense is common understanding among a people in a particular culture, and different cultures have different notions of common sense. (That's not to say there aren't any universal common sense notions shared by these different groups....)

The author quotes Wittgenstein's clever and interesting comparison between language and city: ... Ask yourself whether our language is complete--whether it was complete before the symbolism of chemistry or the notion of calculus was annexed, for these are, so to speak, the suburbs of our language." W seems to be saying that our language has not always been as developed as it is now--just as suburbs didn't exist till the development of cars, dirt & paved roads, railways, and express highways, thus making it possible for people to move away or out of crowded urban areas to improve their lives.

Language of chemistry and calculus is likened to the suburbs. They represent abstract thought. His discriptive analogy expands further: Our language can be seen as an old city: a maze of little streets and squares, old and new houses." These little streets and squares represent our old language while "straight streets and uniform houses" represent modern/comtemporary language. "Houses with addition from various periods" symbolize new language-- words, phrases, new ways of talking, and possibly spoken English with new accents & dialects.

Geetz's piece on common sense is heavy, and could be heavier going for those who don't have at least minimal knowledge of these thinkers' systems of thought. I had to read it twice, and wouldn't hurt to read again either.

The Right Handbook

I agree with the authors, most professions/fields have their own way of including/excluding others. According to the reading, grammarians and scholars do it as well.

Re: It's interesting to note that the English language being graded -- high-class, low-class, and standard English-- is not a linguistic construction but a social one. Society controls people - or, I should say, people do it in context of society, because they are interested in keeping the status quo. They do it by keeping the middle, working, and poor classes in the dark: "Ignorance leads to insecurity."  Of course, there are ordinary citizens who just follow the existing conditions without questioning it--baaaaaa. But they did not create it even though they play a role in, consciously or unconsciously, recreating or maintaining it. In a way I understand this, because I find myself at times following like a sheep as well, especially when I conserve my energy for working, going to school, and trying to get ahead. It takes a lot of energy to go against the mainstream.

Getting back on track-- It's great that we are being made aware of the academia snobbery "straight from the horse's mouth." Nonetheless, every professional field does protect its own interest. For instance, look at psychiatry: The diagnostic manual is filled with hard and dense language to describe "pathologies," which is applied to behaviors. However, often times these behaviors are very common and much easier to understand than the language used to describe them. The psychiatic profession does this to sound scientific/objective, but it's also a way to keep the lay person dependent on "shrinks".  The patient or ordinary person thinks the psychiatrist must know something because (s)he understands this obscure language. Lawyers do the same: It's called legalese.  It's also worth noting that both professions charge a lot of money. It's a big business.

I read the writing sample about consciousness, and I was surprised when I turned the page to see that an expert author wrote it. At first I thought it was written by a student, but then I realized that the authors of The Right Handbook were showing how published writers/scholars get away with breaking the rules.

My thoughts on the matter are that a student ought to learn the rules of writing before (s)he ventures out to break them. Here's an analogy in the spiritual realm: If a spiritual seeker goes to yoga class and the instructor says " to get enlightened, you have to let go of your ego." If that spiritual seeker doesn't have a developed ego (but a fragmented one), how can he let it go." You can't let go of something you don't possess.   Same with grammar and writing-- how can you break the rules if you don't know it. 

Writing well is empowering. Personally, I have to work hard at it. It's not easy, because I started late in life. However, I believe if one didn't learn the rules of writing or grammar in elementary school, it doesn't mean (s)he can't learn it as an adult. Even though old habits die hard, I am able to recognize my mistakes when they are pointed, which I couldn't do before. The key is that one must be committed to working hard. It's also important to have a teacher/tutor who believes in his/her student,, and is willing to put in the time and  effort.

In  chapters 1 & 2, the authors make clear that it is important to have a standard dialect when speaking and writing in order to communicate effectively.  They're not advocating that students throw away grammar and the mechanics of writing. They are encouraging them to empower themselves by being in the know with regards to language. The authors help by providing some background in order to debunk certain myths that keep us ignorant.

blooper runs along the moon

blooper runs along the moon